Yes, it is. Many people try to pull the old "the Constitution doesn't say 'separation of church and state' anywhere" argument, but that just doesn't hold water. True, those exact words do not appear in the document; however, their intent does.
Let's start with what the First Amendment actually does say, shall we? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first part is known as the Establishment Clause, and it is the meat of the matter. What exactly does it mean to respect the establishment of religion?
Rather than put it in my own words and have you accuse me of being a Communist-Manifesto reader (which, by the way, I am), allow me to quote the Supreme Court. In the Court's decision on Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Justice Black said:
When the power, prestige, and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.
Call me crazy, but I think having Congress and the President host the National Prayer Breakfast is a pretty clear example of throwing the power and prestige of the Government behind Christianity. As is the use of the title "National" for this event; everyone knows that this makes it sound like an officially-sanctioned event sponsored by the Government. Oh wait, it is.
But Justice Black didn't stop there. Of the purpose of the Establishment Clause, he said:
It's first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and destroy religion....The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy to permit its "unhallowed perversion" by a civil magistrate.
Oooo, now that's unexpected! The Founders chose to separate these two not to protect laws from religion but keep religion unsullied by government! That's not an argument you hear every day. Frankly, I think it's a bit grandiose of a statement, but the core ideology is nonetheless intact: mixing these two institutions has historically proven detrimental sooner or later.
But wait, there's more:
Another purpose of the Establishment Clause rrested upon an awareness of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand.
Case in point: the furor over the Non-Mosque Not at Ground Zero. If there were not such widespread misconception that we are a "Christian nation," would there be such oppression of Muslims? Another case in point: I heard some people expressing outrage that Muslims were allowed to pray on the grounds of the White House. Upon questioning, it became patently clear that this indignation was not over the act of praying at the W.H. but that it was a Muslim prayer; expression of Christianity would have been a-ok. Long story short, I caught them in their own logic: anyone truly believing in freedom of religion wouldn't have batted an eyelash at this occurrence, and it was only because of a perceived State religion that these people were offended.
Now, for those of you who may consider Justice Black a Communist, allow me to quote from the Burger Court. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1970), this Court developed a three-part test for determining establishment of religion: (1)whether the program at issue has secular purpose; (2)if the primary effect is neither to advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) whether the legislation fosters "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
Call me crazy again, but I'm pretty sure the National Prayer Breakfast could be considered excessive entanglement. And it certainly advances Christian dogma. We all know damned well that if the National Prayer Breakfast were sponsored by, say, Sikhs, the Tea Baggers would be up in arms over Obama and his socialist government forcing Hinduism down our throats. If the shoe fits.....
The fact that a measely two Supreme Court cases so clearly demonstrate that the Establishment Clause does in fact constitute separation of church and state should give you an idea of what the rest of the voluminous case law says. I will continue reading it, so you don't have to. Just check back here for more.
Good work.
ReplyDeleteThe phrase "separation of church and state" is but a metaphor to describe the principle reflected by the Constitution (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) and, indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office. That the phrase does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they've discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that is the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
The Constitution and particularly the First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
Very well stated Doug! Thank you for taking the time to share your comments. Couldn't have said it more eloquently myself. (I prefer a bit of sass, as is readily evidenced here).
ReplyDeleteIt drives me crazy that these people harp on the exact wording in this case but, as you point out, not in others. That makes them hypocrites, which is the worst thing in the world in my book. Also, I really do just want to scream, "It's a metaphor, people!"
Hope to see your comments again!